tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post1319075394385035151..comments2023-07-26T04:54:13.903-07:00Comments on Robin's Readings and Reflections: An Open Letter to an Evangelical UniversalistTerrell Clemmonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17367926808246409525noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-46718037491609017002010-10-16T20:38:13.405-07:002010-10-16T20:38:13.405-07:00From my observation it is clearly that Universalis...From my observation it is clearly that Universalists tend to cut and crop out scripture into their own idea of truth. I have never heard so many out of context quotes in my life. I see their logic and how they resort to human logic which is based on natural reasoning versus spiritual reasoning that the Apostle Paul warned us against. It is very apparent from reading that the New Testament that God has set a day that we we will be judged and some will be confined to eternal judgement. Jesus constantly referred to it and so did the apostles. It is a common tactic from those who attack the truth of God's word to resort to wise sounding human wisdom but if someone takes the strip away the wise sounding word then they are left with a foolish argument revealing the intent of the real issue. They hate the idea that we all will be held responsible for our decision even it is written on our consciences and some of us will be throw into a eternal judgement. What got Satan thrown out. He thought himself wiser than so do these Universalists.brown onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09065619779435427568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-21064254185697145122009-04-25T13:57:00.000-07:002009-04-25T13:57:00.000-07:00Aaron, I'm not aware of ever having given a "fruit...Aaron, I'm not aware of ever having given a "fruit test" of your doctrines by saying that they lead to lawlessness. If you could provide a citation from where I allegedly said that then I would know more specifically what you were referring to. Also, I'm not aware of having engaged in an ad hominem argument against you at any time. Again, a quotation from any previous discussion would be useful. At this point, I simply have no idea what you are referring to.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09254115748657338424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-67178292180353975572009-04-25T08:48:00.000-07:002009-04-25T08:48:00.000-07:00Oh John, that is beautifully put. You have hi-lit...Oh John, that is beautifully put. You have hi-lited such wonderful aspects of Reality -- the Truth that has set us free!<br /> <br />In regard to your points about many who have a truth revealed to them -- yet they are not necessarily scholars: we should not forget the true scholars who have embraced this greater hope, even though there be other scholars who do not. Among those who do, three men readily come to mind: William Barclay (see his Spiritual Autobiography), Paul Tillich, and Jurgen Moltmann. I would also mention Rudolf Bultmann and Marcus Borg, but they might be considered too liberal for some to consider : )<br /> <br />Another point that I would add, is that most all of us -- once we are enlightened to some particular aspect of revealed truth -- can tend to then read Scripture from this particular construct. Reformed theologians are far from exempt from this human trait. Robin, I consider your lengthy blog as an example. To my reading of it, you have done exactly what you accused universalists of having done. I'm sure that preterists, and all of us, have in one way or another done the same. But this is why we discuss these issues, to have our brothers and sisters point out our blind spots. We all tend to generalize about other folks -- I've done this in this very paragraph. But if, in seeing a weak point in someone, we then "throw out the baby with the bathwater" we will wind up missing a lot that is precious. I love my Reformed brothers, I love my Concordant brothers, I love my Arminian brothers -- and I could go on, yet with each of them I agree on some points and disagree on others. Nonetheless, there are many points of revealed Truth upon which I will stand against all, and one of those is that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, or, as 1 Tim. 2 says,<br /><br />3. This [is] beautiful (fine; ideal) and welcomingly received from the presence of, and in the sight of, God, our Deliverer (our Savior; the One Who heals us and makes us whole, restoring us to our original state and condition),<br /><br />4. Who is constantly willing (continuously intending and purposing) all mankind (all humanity) to be saved (delivered; rescued; made healthy and whole), and (or: even) to come into a full, accurate, experiential and intimate knowledge and insight of Truth (or: into a realization of reality),<br /><br />5. for God [is] One, and One [is the] Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus (or: for [there is] one God, and one medium between God and humans, [the] human, Anointed Jesus),<br /><br />6. the One giving Himself a correspondent ransom (a ransom in the place of and directed toward the situation) over [the situation of and] on behalf of (or: for) all (everyone; all humanity and all things) the witness [note: “the witness” is omitted by A; other MSS: the evidence of which] [will come] in its own fitting situations (or: the Witness for their own seasons; Testimony to His own particular occasions)charles slaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14699318534126257269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-10574824043369064942009-04-25T08:07:00.000-07:002009-04-25T08:07:00.000-07:00Hi Robin,
John G. here again after a layoff....Hi Robin,<br /> John G. here again after a layoff. Your Open Letter to a Christian Universalist held my attention, though at several points I hurriedly perused the text as I grasped your essential thrust. Some comments: I think you may be unaware of the depth of consideration being given within the community of Evangelical Universalists (or preferably Biblical Restorationists), to the issues you raise.<br /> There are many among us whose understanding of ultimate reconciliation lies within the larger context of God's eonian---and that, out from eternity---purpose as He fulfills the propensity of His nature in "all the earth." It ought not surprise you that (if, in fact, God is presently particularly restoring the truth of the ultimate salvation of all mankind), that<br />not all those immediately impacted by that once-again emerging truth, would have the spritual maturity and biblical grounding to see the larger picture of what is God's original intention for"all the earth" that would necessitate the inclusion of a fall and recovery of His creation.<br /> I think you would agree that historically as men of God were raised up to confront their day with a certain truth or truths, that those who had an ear to hear rarely saw---certainly not immediately--- the larger context in which to fully appreciate that restored truth, e.g., Luther re: justification by faith, the sole authority of scripture, and the priesthood of the believer; the Wesleys in re: to (essentially) the necessity of a real subjective experience of God's Spirit in holiness of life; the Pentecostal and Charismatic renewals that brought to the church's---and the world's----attention, something akin to the early chruch's awareness of the Holy Spirit as the dynamic of the life of the body of Christ.<br /> For instance, as I was drawn into a considerable participation in the Charismatic Renewal, I was amazed at how some dear folks could be powerfully moved upon by the Spirit, and wonderfully gifted, at least momentarily, while largely ignorant of where God was, so to speak, coming from and going to in it all.<br /> I have found within the ranks of those brethren who embrace the salvation of all men, the most profound understanding of the very issues you raise, but you have to investigate further into what's happening in our community to appreciate that. All, even great, moves of God have about them an element of chaos, messiness and immaturity that can easily distract one from seeing and appreciating the genuine activity of the Spirit in spite of all such contradistinction.<br /> Now, as to the larger picture: It seems to me that the understanding of the nature of election is finally where our disagreement lies. I ask that you consider this: that there is, in the economy of God, an overarching, primal election that gives meaning to all of God's subsequent choices of, and among men. Jesus addressed what is seminal to the issue of election, when He explained to His disciples, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should bring forth fruit, and that your fruit may remain." (Excuse me if that's not a word-perfect recollection).<br /> With that principle in mind, it became clear to me that it is none other than, and nothing less than Adam (and His Eve-complement), who is God's elect to "be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, and conquer it." It was Adam (inclusive of all who would come from his loins), who from the beginning was chosen out from all creation to bless all creation.<br /> In the history of God's dealing with mankind from Adam, there have been many sovereign choices by God as He continued on unthwarted to prove that His gift and calling to Adam is "without repentance," but all those choices of God, all those callings-out from among men, only have meaning, and must be understood in relationship to that primal election<br /> All creation is waiting expectantly for the sons of God to be uncovered (a better translation that "manifested," as Jonathan has explained.) Beneath mankind's creaturehood lies our divine generation, from which we have suffered a disconnect which is the very essence of death. Paul made it clear in addressing his audience on Mar's Hill, that we are all God's offspring (those generated of Him, His very kin).<br /> Our own earthenness awaits that uncovering, and since all earthenness has Adam as its head, when we come to "know as we are known" creation will follow us out of its bondage to decay, into the liberty of our glory, which is the glory Jesus shares from the Father with all His brethren. <br /> I was powerfully impacted by, and since then, deeply informed by the fact that among His brethren, the Jews, who prided themselves in being the children of Abraham, Jesus laid great emphasis on His identity as the Son of Man, which equates to the Son of Adam. Right at that point, Jesus confronted the elitist spirit that has distorted the meaning of election. He stood in solidarity with all humanity. He is both the bodily fulness of the Godhead, and the True, all-inclusive Man.<br /> So the restoration of all mankind indeed must be understood and appreciated within the larger picture of mankind as---as Paul wrote---"the image and glory of God." The nonsensical notion of creation "ex nihilo" hides the sublime and glorious truth that God's relationship with man is ontological. We are first the fruit of His loins. It is impossible that an Eternal Father should birth merely temporal sons.<br /> In the eternal begetting of His only/one/single Son by His One Seed, God eternally birthed the One who, in Himself, included the many brethren predestined to be conformed to His image. I have a great yearning for you to embrace Christ as inclusive of all mankind. There is one God and Father who is in all, and over all, whose One Spirit is the Spirit of the One Body, the whole body of humanity. The Gentiles (all the nations/tribes/groups) are members of that same body. <br /><br />His and yours,<br />John G.charles slaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14699318534126257269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-26057130460759918372009-04-24T14:50:00.000-07:002009-04-24T14:50:00.000-07:00I can't believe that you actually used this fallac...I can't believe that you actually used this fallacy to refute me. Basically your saying that it is ok to be a hypocrite but I should then evaluate your argument strictly on the logistical merits. That's not the way life works. But let me put it to you this way. I can understand if what you really want is the argument to be evaluated on the logistical merits and not consider other evidence. But you no longer have that luxury. You opened the door by taking a "fruit test" of my doctrines by saying that they lead to lawlessness. That opened the door for me to evaluate the "fruits" of your argument. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And I believe that Calvinism is a religion that limits love whereas Universalism does not and therefore Calvinism should be flatly rejected on that point alone. Furthermore, I believe that Calvinism is a selfish religion because I haven't met a calvinist to date that has cared more about the soul of anyone more than his own (at least I have never met a calvinist who has been willing to give his soul for the sake of another as Universalists are). The bottom line is Universalism yields better fruit. And thats why its true. Ask yourself this question. Have I said anything about Calvinism to date thats false? If so what? Simple statements about logical fallacies will not make my charges go away. The very fact that you are unwilling to refute them tells me that you can't. You may very well be smarter than me but that doesn't mean that you are right.<br /><br />Aaron Herrbachaaronhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18100697419678415202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-3593713753830905012009-04-24T12:40:00.000-07:002009-04-24T12:40:00.000-07:00Aaron, I'm afraid your latest formulations are a s...Aaron, I'm afraid your latest formulations are a specimen of the Tu quoque fallacy. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoqueAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09254115748657338424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-27507534586642623962009-04-24T02:03:00.000-07:002009-04-24T02:03:00.000-07:00To whom it may concern:
It never ceases to amaze ...To whom it may concern:<br /><br />It never ceases to amaze me how often I see one person have one set of standards for themselves and another set of standards for everyone else. Mr. Phillips has accused me of doing an ad hominem argument and is therefore unworthy of refutation. What he is not telling you is that he did the exact same thing to me on a discussion we had over skype when he accused me of preaching a gospel of lawlessness and a sin as you please attitude. Rather than just saying to him "Your commiting an ad hominem fallacy" I merely told him that that was not what I was preaching at all and that I believed that when people are exposed to true love and enough patience that people are changed so that they don't want to sin; an argument he had no response to. So I find it a bit hypocritical that he is holding me to a standard that he himself does not hold to. To me this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to "correct" me in my "erroneous assumptions" and say things like "I do love you Aaron more than myself. I do care about people more than my own soul. I do produce the same if not more fruit than you do." It begs the question. Why didn't he? And while I am on the subject CREDIBILITY of the messenger does matter. For example, I do not give much weight to a KKK member speaking on a platform no matter how articulate they are or how much Scripture they quote. Why? Because I know their basic phillosophy is one of hatred and to me love is the yardstick by which truth is measured not how articulate someone is. There are many well articulated articles in favor of communism that are hard to disprove from a logical point of view. But anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that communism is a bankrupt philosophy BECAUSE OF THE FRUIT IT HAS PRODUCED WHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED. It doesn't matter how well you can articulate something. If it doesn't work in actual practice it's not true. Even Mathematicians know that when they solve a quadratic equation with two solutions that they must throw out the negative solution when they are dealing with things like length because length cannot be negative. The bottom line is Universalism is true because it has developed in me a universal love for all mankind. Calvinism teaches its ok to hate some people. I will not follow any religion that teaches that. I already know that I will not change Mr. Phillips mind and that's ok. At this point I will diverge from him and let him have one opinion and I another. But I take comfort in the fact that he does not have the final word. God does. We will both have to wait and see which one of us is right. This has never been a battle between faith and reason. It has always been a battle between faith and faith. Mr. Phillips has given me no motivation to change my faith to his so I am going to stick with Universalism.<br /><br />Aaron Herrbachaaronhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18100697419678415202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-2937054029297228472009-04-23T21:52:00.000-07:002009-04-23T21:52:00.000-07:00I try never to respond to ad hominems.I try never to respond to ad hominems.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09254115748657338424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-49602700971400803072009-04-23T13:00:00.000-07:002009-04-23T13:00:00.000-07:00The basic premise of this article seems to stem fr...The basic premise of this article seems to stem from the fact that Universalists are connecting the dots of Scripture in the wrong way and that the author is connecting them in the right way. Space does not permit time to deconstruct what the author has written any more than space permits time to deconstruct what many Universalists have written on the subject because people have literally written books on the subject. However, I still believe that the Universalist position is the right one and I will tell you why using one of Jesus' simple rules. "You shall know them by their FRUITS" (not their doctrines) (Matthew 7:16) What this means in this context is this. I have already informed the author of this article that if I made it to heaven and he was destined for hell that I would go to hell in his (or any other human beings) place as an act of sacrifical love for him. I then asked him if he would do the same for me. I got no response. I already know that the person to whom he wrote the article would do the same for me. The fact that the author would not do this for me tells me that he does not love me as much as I love him. And that tells me right there that Calvinism is wrong because Calvinism puts limits on love. Paul once said in Romans 9 that he wished he was accursed for the sake of his bretheren the Israelites. Furthermore, Moses once said that if the Israelites had to be destroyed that he wanted his name taken out of the book of life. The bottom line is that I just have never seen that spirit in any calvinist that I have met to date (and I have met a lot of them). Most have the attitude of I'm the elect, I'm superior and the non elect are pieces of trash. I am not saying I speak for all calvinists here by those comments but I certainly have NEVER met one who his willing to die for anyone and everyone at the expense of his own soul. In other words I have never met a Calvinst who cared more for anyones soul than his own. I am willing to die to see to it that everyone is saved and the bottom line is that if you are not willing to love your neighbor in the same way I am, then why should I listen to anything you have to say concerning matters of religion? It is for these reasons that I know that Calvinism is false. The love is just not there.<br /><br />Aaron Herrbachaaronhehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18100697419678415202noreply@blogger.com